These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Specific Examples of Where Risk Should Be Inserted Successfully Into High-sec

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Darth Gustav
Sith Interstellar Tech Harvesting
#301 - 2012-10-10 06:21:09 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Jorma Morkkis wrote:
He says that supply of materials has gone up after removal of meta 0 loot and drone stuff.
No. He said “Lower supply with consistent demand should yield higher prices in the future. Which is what we were seeing for a while, predictibly.”

Notice how nothing in those two statements make any kind of claim that supplies are currently the same.

So why should he prove something he didn't say? Why are you incapable of posting without lying?

I appreciate the translation, Tippia. Apparently my English is terrible!

He who trolls trolls best when he who is trolled trolls the troller. -Darth Gustav's Axiom
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy
Caldari State
#302 - 2012-10-10 06:22:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Jorma Morkkis
Tippia wrote:
Jorma Morkkis wrote:
He says that supply of materials has gone up after removal of meta 0 loot and drone stuff.
No. He said “Lower supply with consistent demand should yield higher prices in the future. Which is what we were seeing for a while, predictibly.”

Notice how nothing in those two statements make any kind of claim that supplies are currently the same.

So why should he prove something he didn't say? Why are you incapable of posting without lying?


"For a while".

I don't have problem with Trit going for 100 isk/unit. You should remember that it will also affect price of your supers.
Darth Gustav
Sith Interstellar Tech Harvesting
#303 - 2012-10-10 06:24:58 UTC
Jorma Morkkis wrote:
Tippia wrote:
Jorma Morkkis wrote:
He says that supply of materials has gone up after removal of meta 0 loot and drone stuff.
No. He said “Lower supply with consistent demand should yield higher prices in the future. Which is what we were seeing for a while, predictibly.”

Notice how nothing in those two statements make any kind of claim that supplies are currently the same.

So why should he prove something he didn't say? Why are you incapable of posting without lying?


"For a while".

I don't have problem with Trit going for 100 isk/unit. You should remember that it will also affect price of you supers.

Do you have a problem with it going for the lowest transaction amount the game allows, as an artificial floor?

I think that's 0.01 ISK.

If nobody has a problem with Trit eventually getting that low, we shouldn't change anything about high-sec as it currently is.

He who trolls trolls best when he who is trolled trolls the troller. -Darth Gustav's Axiom
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy
Caldari State
#304 - 2012-10-10 06:28:13 UTC
Darth Gustav wrote:
Do you have a problem with it going for the lowest transaction amount the game allows, as an artificial floor


Last time I checked

100 isk/unit > 0.01 isk/unit

L2read.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#305 - 2012-10-10 06:28:47 UTC
Before this forever train continues I would just like to point out the the biggest crash has been in the ice markets which were not impacted by gun mining in any way. The low end mineral markets have so far only dropped slightly but because of the large quantities required it has had an impact and the prices will continue to fall but at a slower pace than ice has. Already we are seeing high sec systems utterly stripped clean within hours of the sever shutdown by bot fleets which is something I have never seen in the seven or eight years I have been playing.
Darth Gustav
Sith Interstellar Tech Harvesting
#306 - 2012-10-10 06:29:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Darth Gustav
Jorma Morkkis wrote:
Darth Gustav wrote:
Do you have a problem with it going for the lowest transaction amount the game allows, as an artificial floor


Last time I checked

100 isk/unit > 0.01 isk/unit

L2read.

Last time I checked

Value = Demand / Supply.

L2maths.

He who trolls trolls best when he who is trolled trolls the troller. -Darth Gustav's Axiom
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#307 - 2012-10-10 06:31:13 UTC
Jorma Morkkis wrote:
"For a while".
…in other words, he is not claiming that the supplies are currently the same. In fact, if anything, he's saying the exact opposite.

So why should he prove something he didn't say? Why are you incapable of posting without lying?
Touval Lysander
Zero Wine
#308 - 2012-10-10 06:39:38 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Before this forever train continues I would just like to point out the the biggest crash has been in the ice markets which were not impacted by gun mining in any way. The low end mineral markets have so far only dropped slightly but because of the large quantities required it has had an impact and the prices will continue to fall but at a slower pace than ice has. Already we are seeing high sec systems utterly stripped clean within hours of the sever shutdown by bot fleets which is something I have never seen in the seven or eight years I have been playing.

I know you did. I saw that you did. You posted after I did.

I did say ice is -+ 10% what it was 12 months ago. The "high price" you repeatedly quote was artificially induced. A 12 month plot shows this very, very, clearly.

And really. wgaf. Ice is a practical commodity to run a POS or to flip pixel caps around in space.

Eve isn't gonna die cos "ice plummets" unless ofc you're under the "eve" when it does. <<< oooohhh nice.... Blink

"I've always been mad, I know I've been mad, like the most of us...very hard to explain why you're mad, even if you're not mad..."
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy
Caldari State
#309 - 2012-10-10 06:40:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Jorma Morkkis
baltec1 wrote:
Before this forever train continues I would just like to point out the the biggest crash has been in the ice markets which were not impacted by gun mining in any way. The low end mineral markets have so far only dropped slightly but because of the large quantities required it has had an impact and the prices will continue to fall but at a slower pace than ice has. Already we are seeing high sec systems utterly stripped clean within hours of the sever shutdown by bot fleets which is something I have never seen in the seven or eight years I have been playing.


If you see a bot report it. CCP gave you report tools, use them.

In case you didn't know for some people cheaper ice products are better and some of us don't even sell any ot ice we mine but instead use it. It's much better way if you actually need to use it for something like fuel. Of course it requires :effort: but it's not a problem for us.

Caldari highsec =/= high sec systems
Dirty Wizard
Doomheim
#310 - 2012-10-10 06:41:48 UTC
Darth Gustav wrote:
This thread will make a legitimate attempt to engage in logical discussion about changes that could be made to the system as it is to make it less lopsided with regard to risk. A lack of risk is clearly conducive to both runaway deflation (a function of Value = Demand / Supply) and to botting, due to the ease of operation.

It is my hope that this discussion will be conducted in good faith by all participants. Having said that, here are specific changes I would propose to make for more balanced gameplay in High-security space:


  • Allow smartbombs to be activated in the vicinity of anchored containers, both secure and unsecure. These containers' purpose was to hold additional ores and ices, allowing miners to increase their efficiency by remaining in the belts for a considerably longer time, given the size of cargo holds on the old barges and exhumers. Their volume is no longer conducive to anything approaching efficiency, and their ancillary presence is clearly laid out in the form of a giant smartbomb shield around high-security ice fields. That is broken.

  • Increase the yield of the Hulk by adding additional grid and cpu and an extra hardpoint to make it a more attractive option for "ninja miners." This may encourage miners to try ninja mining in a way that makes sense, thus presenting themselves as potential targets, something needed drastically to combat botting and deflation.

  • Introduce the chance for much more difficult NPC spawns to appear anywhere materials can be harvested, and with greater frequency. The current "threats" to mining successfully are grossly inadequate to the task, given the EHP of the new exhumers and barges.

  • Make ice depletable in the same way that ores are. This will force adaptation where none has ever occurred, potentially even driving conflicts and increasing demand.

  • Develop a system that legitimizes miner vs. miner conflicts over resources, such as the Ally system.


Right now the only competition between miners seems to be in jockeying for the best position to be immune from smartbombs and the waiting game of trying to decide when, precisely to unload your ore. In order for high-sec activities to have value, there needs to be high demand for them with moderate supply. Runaway supply will always break the basic equation of economic theory.

I would ask that discussion in this thread be kept to informed and intelligent posts of fact or question, rather than character attacks and mudslinging based on personal playstyle.

As always, thank you for your thoughtful participation.

1) Why? The end result is still the same. Concord stops by to say hello.
2) lol wut?
3) I guess, but to what end? Exumers are now designed to tank well against NPCs and some players. If you throw in a difficult NPC, fitting theorists will devise a way to perma tank them. Or the miner will simply jump to a new belt. Create an NPC that's too difficult and it just discourages mining all together. Either way, attempting to use the stick to drive miners into low or null is foolish as they would sooner give up mining all together rather than mine in low or null.
4) Agreed. I personally question the purpose of having ice belts in highsec.
5) Vague and with little backing behind it. Flesh out your proposal for "miner conflicts" and come back later.

I am in agreement that "Runaway Supply" is a terrible thing for the game. Too many minerals getting pumped into the market lead to our current supercap proliferation and is still causing problems today.

(signature removed due to stupid)
Darth Gustav
Sith Interstellar Tech Harvesting
#311 - 2012-10-10 06:43:26 UTC
Jorma Morkkis wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Before this forever train continues I would just like to point out the the biggest crash has been in the ice markets which were not impacted by gun mining in any way. The low end mineral markets have so far only dropped slightly but because of the large quantities required it has had an impact and the prices will continue to fall but at a slower pace than ice has. Already we are seeing high sec systems utterly stripped clean within hours of the sever shutdown by bot fleets which is something I have never seen in the seven or eight years I have been playing.


If you see a bot report it. CCP gave you report tools, use them.

In case you didn't know for some people cheaper ice products are better and some of us don't even sell any ot ice we mine but instead use it. It's much better way if you actually need to use it for something like fuel. Of course it requires :effort: but it's not a problem for us.

But cheaper ice isn't better for the fellow who mines it at peak efficiency 23.5/7. It drives down his profits.

In other words, with no risk of failure comes runaway supply Runaway supply causes runaway deflation.

Miners literally will devour their own profits as locusts through a landscape.

He who trolls trolls best when he who is trolled trolls the troller. -Darth Gustav's Axiom
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy
Caldari State
#312 - 2012-10-10 06:45:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Jorma Morkkis
Darth Gustav wrote:
But cheaper ice isn't better for the fellow who mines it at peak efficiency 23.5/7. It drives down his profits.


That's a bot, not a player ATK.

Why do you care how much botters earn?
Darth Gustav
Sith Interstellar Tech Harvesting
#313 - 2012-10-10 06:47:04 UTC
Dirty Wizard wrote:
Darth Gustav wrote:
This thread will make a legitimate attempt to engage in logical discussion about changes that could be made to the system as it is to make it less lopsided with regard to risk. A lack of risk is clearly conducive to both runaway deflation (a function of Value = Demand / Supply) and to botting, due to the ease of operation.

It is my hope that this discussion will be conducted in good faith by all participants. Having said that, here are specific changes I would propose to make for more balanced gameplay in High-security space:


  • Allow smartbombs to be activated in the vicinity of anchored containers, both secure and unsecure. These containers' purpose was to hold additional ores and ices, allowing miners to increase their efficiency by remaining in the belts for a considerably longer time, given the size of cargo holds on the old barges and exhumers. Their volume is no longer conducive to anything approaching efficiency, and their ancillary presence is clearly laid out in the form of a giant smartbomb shield around high-security ice fields. That is broken.

  • Increase the yield of the Hulk by adding additional grid and cpu and an extra hardpoint to make it a more attractive option for "ninja miners." This may encourage miners to try ninja mining in a way that makes sense, thus presenting themselves as potential targets, something needed drastically to combat botting and deflation.

  • Introduce the chance for much more difficult NPC spawns to appear anywhere materials can be harvested, and with greater frequency. The current "threats" to mining successfully are grossly inadequate to the task, given the EHP of the new exhumers and barges.

  • Make ice depletable in the same way that ores are. This will force adaptation where none has ever occurred, potentially even driving conflicts and increasing demand.

  • Develop a system that legitimizes miner vs. miner conflicts over resources, such as the Ally system.


Right now the only competition between miners seems to be in jockeying for the best position to be immune from smartbombs and the waiting game of trying to decide when, precisely to unload your ore. In order for high-sec activities to have value, there needs to be high demand for them with moderate supply. Runaway supply will always break the basic equation of economic theory.

I would ask that discussion in this thread be kept to informed and intelligent posts of fact or question, rather than character attacks and mudslinging based on personal playstyle.

As always, thank you for your thoughtful participation.

1) Why? The end result is still the same. Concord stops by to say hello.
2) lol wut?
3) I guess, but to what end? Exumers are now designed to tank well against NPCs and some players. If you throw in a difficult NPC, fitting theorists will devise a way to perma tank them. Or the miner will simply jump to a new belt. Create an NPC that's too difficult and it just discourages mining all together. Either way, attempting to use the stick to drive miners into low or null is foolish as they would sooner give up mining all together rather than mine in low or null.
4) Agreed. I personally question the purpose of having ice belts in highsec.
5) Vague and with little backing behind it. Flesh out your proposal for "miner conflicts" and come back later.

I am in agreement that "Runaway Supply" is a terrible thing for the game. Too many minerals getting pumped into the market lead to our current supercap proliferation and is still causing problems today.

1) Good question. As it is now, they block smartbomb activation and serve no other real purpose. That's broken. No other deployable storage gear prevents weapon activation of any type.

2) I'm trying to tempt miners into low/null with a very high yield option that isn't sensible for use in high-sec.

3) Risk increases the objective compensatory value of the profession as a function of Value = Demand / Supply.

4) Thank you.

5) I think that miners should be able to hire "offensive" or "corporate military" mercenaries who function like offensive or defensive allies in the war system to fight against each other or threats to their operation. I'm unsure of the mechanics for it, though, because of the enormous complication of NPC corps. Rookie corps are far less problematic by their nature.

He who trolls trolls best when he who is trolled trolls the troller. -Darth Gustav's Axiom
Darth Gustav
Sith Interstellar Tech Harvesting
#314 - 2012-10-10 06:48:48 UTC
Jorma Morkkis wrote:
Darth Gustav wrote:
But cheaper ice isn't better for the fellow who mines it at peak efficiency 23.5/7. It drives down his profits.


That's a bot, not a player ATK.

Why do you care how much botters earn?

It impacts what players who can't mine 23.5/7 earn, too. Roll

And that's bad for the game.

He who trolls trolls best when he who is trolled trolls the troller. -Darth Gustav's Axiom
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy
Caldari State
#315 - 2012-10-10 06:52:41 UTC
Darth Gustav wrote:
It impacts what players who can't mine 23.5/7 earn, too. Roll

And that's bad for the game.


If player mines 23/7... he could die after few days at that rate.
Darth Gustav
Sith Interstellar Tech Harvesting
#316 - 2012-10-10 06:54:38 UTC
Jorma Morkkis wrote:
Darth Gustav wrote:
It impacts what players who can't mine 23.5/7 earn, too. Roll

And that's bad for the game.


If player mines 23/7... he could die after few days at that rate.

If three other player mine 8 hours each, but face no risk, the effect is the same.

And the chance of death is much lower.

But they still compete against the bot, who also pilots risk-free.

He who trolls trolls best when he who is trolled trolls the troller. -Darth Gustav's Axiom
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
Senpai's Afterschool Anime and Gaming Club
#317 - 2012-10-10 07:01:29 UTC
FYI, people on botting forums are happy. Very very happy.

I wrote some true EVE stories! And no, they're not of the generic "my 0.0 alliance had lots of 0.0 fleets and took a lot of 0.0 space" sort. Check them out here:

https://truestories.eveonline.com/users/2074-destiny-corrupted
Darth Gustav
Sith Interstellar Tech Harvesting
#318 - 2012-10-10 07:02:52 UTC
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
FYI, people on botting forums are happy. Very very happy.

Can we get links or quotes? That's interesting information.

I don't know the forum rules on this. Can we talk about bot authors' and users' opinions of game mechanics?

Question

He who trolls trolls best when he who is trolled trolls the troller. -Darth Gustav's Axiom
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
Senpai's Afterschool Anime and Gaming Club
#319 - 2012-10-10 07:04:21 UTC
Darth Gustav wrote:
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
FYI, people on botting forums are happy. Very very happy.

Can we get links or quotes? That's interesting information.

I don't know the forum rules on this. Can we talk about bot authors' and users' opinions of game mechanics?

Question

Can't, for obvious reasons. But people can check for themselves. I recommend browsing with Sandboxie though. Also through a proxy and with EVE turned off, just in case Big Brother is (somehow) watching.

I wrote some true EVE stories! And no, they're not of the generic "my 0.0 alliance had lots of 0.0 fleets and took a lot of 0.0 space" sort. Check them out here:

https://truestories.eveonline.com/users/2074-destiny-corrupted
Touval Lysander
Zero Wine
#320 - 2012-10-10 07:04:54 UTC
Darth Gustav wrote:
Jorma Morkkis wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Before this forever train continues I would just like to point out the the biggest crash has been in the ice markets which were not impacted by gun mining in any way. The low end mineral markets have so far only dropped slightly but because of the large quantities required it has had an impact and the prices will continue to fall but at a slower pace than ice has. Already we are seeing high sec systems utterly stripped clean within hours of the sever shutdown by bot fleets which is something I have never seen in the seven or eight years I have been playing.


If you see a bot report it. CCP gave you report tools, use them.

In case you didn't know for some people cheaper ice products are better and some of us don't even sell any ot ice we mine but instead use it. It's much better way if you actually need to use it for something like fuel. Of course it requires :effort: but it's not a problem for us.

But cheaper ice isn't better for the fellow who mines it at peak efficiency 23.5/7. It drives down his profits.

In other words, with no risk of failure comes runaway supply Runaway supply causes runaway deflation.

Miners literally will devour their own profits as locusts through a landscape.

Darth

WHO CARES if an ice miner gets his profits driven down? God only knows how much ice is mined because it's NEEDED, not sold.

And "runaway supply" will have it's OWN effect on miners if it "drives down his profits" so much that he can't mine profitably.

We don't sink oil tankers bud - it's controlled by the producers.

In Oz, iron ore took a tumble, the iron ore mines curbed production. Price is coming back up. Mines re-open. No tanks, guns or external intervention was ever used or needed.

It's a FREE market. Artifical intervention is bad mmm..kk...

"I've always been mad, I know I've been mad, like the most of us...very hard to explain why you're mad, even if you're not mad..."